  Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
BY JAYA RAMACHANDRAN
IDN-InDepthNews Service
BERLIN (IDN) - There is so much gloom and doom after Barcelona and St. Andrews that a catastrophic climate change appears inevitable. Some seem to envision the planet Earth being smashed to the smithereens if the milestone Copenhagen conference fails to reach a legally binding agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol that holds the ground until 2012.
In this treaty agreed 1997, 37 industrialized states committed themselves to cutting emissions by an average of 5 per cent against 1990 levels over the period from 2008 to 2012.
The history of climate diplomacy that spans no more than the past about fifteen years proves that just as one swallow does not make a summer, disagreements to the last minute do not lead to disasters.
Following this logic, a failed Copenhagen (Dec. 7-18) will be followed by subsequent meetings under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) next June in Bonn and the following December in Mexico.
There are clear signs however that the Copenhagen conference will see a major battle, unless informal meetings and talks among some countries help to bridge the gaps between the developed and developing countries.
This was clearly indicated by representatives of two largest developing countries in Barcelona.
At the closing plenary in Barcelona, China’s delegation chief Su Wei gave a straight message. “To those developed countries who are standing there waiting for developing countries to act, please look ahead,” he said.
“We, the developing countries, have already left you behind, you cannot use developing countries as an excuse for your inaction any more. Please wake up and see that Copenhagen is just miles away, you have to get running in order to catch up. Otherwise, you will fail in the race to Copenhagen and beyond.”
India’s special envoy on climate change Shyam Saran rejected attempts to already declare failure at Barcelona and downgrade expectations from Copenhagen. “To talk about a political agreement instead of a legally binding outcome, to suggest that we may be able to achieve some results only by the end of 2010, these are prophecies which we must dismiss,” he said.
But what happened in Barcelona and St. Andrews?
The last session of United Nations climate talks before Copenhagen that concluded Nov. 6 in Barcelona was crowned with little progress on the key political issues. But the five-day gathering in which over 4,500 participants from 181 countries participated, progress was made on the issues of adaptation, technology cooperation, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and mechanisms to disburse funds for developing countries.
Little progress was made, however, on mid-term emission reduction targets of developed countries and finance, according to a news release issued by the UNFCCC secretariat in Bonn. These are two key issues that would allow developing countries to limit their emissions growth and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change.
“Without these two pieces of the puzzle in place, we will not have a deal in Copenhagen,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, adding that “leadership at the highest level is required to unlock the pieces.”
De Boer points out that at the high-level climate change summit held in New York in September, heads of state and government pledged to achieve a deal in Copenhagen that spells out ambitious emission reduction targets of industrialized countries, as well as nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries with the necessary support, and significantly scaled-up financial and technological resources.
“I look to industrialised countries to raise their ambitions to meet the scale of the challenge we face,” said de Boer. “And I look to industrialized nations for clarity on the amount of short- and long-term finance they will commit.”
De Boer said developed countries would need to provide at least $10 billion to enable developing countries to immediately develop low-emission growth and adaptation strategies and to build internal capacity.
At the same time, developed countries will need to indicate how they intend to raise predictable and sustainable long-term financing and what there longer-term commitments will be.
“Negotiators must deliver a final text at Copenhagen which presents a strong, functioning architecture to kick start rapid action in the developing world,” said the UNFCCC Executive Secretary.
“And between now and Copenhagen, governments must deliver the clarity required to help the negotiators complete their work,” he added.
KYOTO PROCOL ABANDONED?
South Centre executive director Martin Khor regrets that in Barcelona "differences on some key issues remained and in some cases deepened, which is not a positive sign for Copenhagen".
First, is the future of the Kyoto Protocol. What was signalled in Bangkok in early October was confirmed in Barcelona that almost all the developed countries have decided to abandon the Protocol. "They apparently want to establish a new agreement, which is likely to be a climb down from the internationally legally binding regime that was Kyoto, to a collection of national efforts and peer review of performance, in the new agreement," says Khor
The developing countries made clear in Barcelona that they would not accept this climb-down and that the developed countries have to make clear they will remain in the Kyoto Protocol and seriously negotiate a second commitment period starting in 2013 in Copenhagen.
Second, is the very low level of ambition of developed countries in emission reduction. Developing countries have called for an aggregate cut of at least 40 percent by 2020 compared to 1990.
The latest figures revealed at Barcelona point out that the national announcements amount to only 16 percent to 23 percent (excluding the U.S., Secretariat data) and 11 percent to17 percent (including the U.S., according to an estimate of the small island states).
"The developing countries are aghast at such low levels of commitment, which do not form a basis of an environmentally ambitious outcome in Copenhagen," writes Khor known for his affiliation to the Third World Network before he joined the South Centre, a think tank of developing countries.
Third, is the continued attempt to shift the burden of responsibility to developing countries, and in violation of the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and the Bali Action Plan.
Developed countries at Barcelona proposed to blur the distinction between the differentiated responsibilities of developed countries (mitigation commitments that are legally binding) and developing countries (mitigation actions enabled and supported by finance and technology).
The attempts included getting developing countries to adhere to new and broad reporting and verification procedures similar to developed countries, to get some “advanced developing countries” to adhere to reduction emission targets, and to get developing countries in general to have emissions “deviation from business as usual by 15 percent to 30 percent”.
These were not agreed to in Bali nor are they in the Convention’s provisions.
Fourth, the adequate means to enable developing countries to take actions are still not forthcoming. On finance, the developed countries have yet as a group to respond to the finance proposals of the developing countries which rage from 1 percent to 5 percent of the GNP.
On technology transfer, developed countries are reluctant to agree to the setting up of an executive body to decide on technology issues and to effect technology transfer.
"An advisory group is not good enough, especially since there has been very little tech-transfer achieved under the Convention for the past decade and a half," writes Khor in the Malaysian Star Online.
Fifth, there is a difference over the shared vision and a long-term global goal for emission reduction.
Some developed countries confirmed their proposal for a global 50 percent emissions cut by 2050 compared to 1990, and a 80 percent cut for themselves. However, what was not stated is that this requires developing countries to also cut by 20 percent in absolute terms and 60 percent in per capita terms. Some developing countries have to cut by significantly more than 60 percent from the 2009 level.
Thus, the “burden” in percentage terms is almost the same. Yet the massive finance and technology transfers that may enable developing countries to take on a part of this challenge is not forthcoming.
The figures have to be discussed more, the developed countries have to undertake “negative emissions” (achieve net emissions reduction, below zero) and the finance and technology issues have to be resolved beforehand.
The above are some of the issues to be resolved if Copenhagen is to be a success, notes Khor. Whatever the nature or form of the outcome -- whether a full deal or a framework of a deal, or a decision to continue the talks -- the aspects of environment, equity and North-South balance have to be taken care of, he adds.
ST. ANDREWS
Climate finance was also on the agenda of the finance ministers of the G20 industrialised and major developing countries in St. Andrews. A close look at their communiqué Nov. 7 unveils a lot of rhetoric but no solid commitments by the developed members of the group.
They said: "We committed to take action to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen, within the objective, provisions and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."
"They also discussed climate change financing options and recognised the need to increase significantly and urgently the scale and predictability of finance to implement an ambitious international agreement," says the communiqué.
It goes on to pontificate that public finance can leverage significant private investment, and then adds: "Increasing the scope of carbon markets would depend on policy frameworks of developed and developing countries and on the depth of emission reductions on the part of developed countries."
To deliver this financing, the communiqué says, coordinated equitable, transparent and effective institutional arrangements will be needed. "Coordination of support for country-led plans and reporting of this support should be ensured across all financing channels, multilateral, regional and bilateral."
Obviously the communiqué keeps developing countries guessing how much and when they might count on the much-needed funds to start protecting themselves against the horrendous consequences of climate change for which the industrialised nations bear historic responsibility. (IDN-InDepthNews/09.11.09)
Copyright © 2009 IDN-InDepthNews Service
-----
Related IDN articles:
http://www.indepthnews.net/area2.php?key=CC
|
